I don't know anyone who mentions the First Gulf War (FGW) in any context. Seriously, no one seems to be spending any time thinking about it or talking about it. So why this article? I think a handful of people keep chatting-up the topic while the rest of Americans simply don't care. I don't. I am sure my neighbors and co-workers don't.

The Foolish Second gulf War (FSGW) is a different issue as only a handful of far-right nutters still repeat the lies which sucked us in. Aside from one nutter, I don't know anyone who supports the FSGW (and I confess that I derive some glee from asking people if they told their elected representitives to not invade, as I did).

The FSGW will ultimately eliminate any residual positives from the FGW as America eventually accepts the fact that it is just another version of Vietnam, only with sand. The memories of the FGW and the FSGW have merged into a blur. Americans never seem to learn.

What GWI and GWII should have taught any rogue regime on this planet is that you don't mess with Uncle Sam, and that you can't win in the long run: Your options these days are either to survive for a while, or get crushed and replaced.
But rogue regimes don't necessarily learn effectively, and they often follow a logic of their own, typically focused on pointless 'Defiance'.

I think your post may be a little off-topic but I would like to comment that the U.S. lost in Vietnam, Somalia, Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. And if Israel has its way the U.S. will also lose in Iran.

In a desperate full-on slugging-match the U.S. is indeed a terrible foe. Otherwise, the historical record is less clear. We should focus on when to walk-away, and when to get involved. And if we get involved, we need to know exactly what we are doing and what the achievable goals are, and have an exit strategy if the situation changes in a way that we can not cope with.

Being smart is better than being dumb, and crushing the enemy is not always possible.

"Being smart is better than being dumb" is indeed a very deep thought.

To the point - You and I must be living on different planets.

The US lost neither the first nor the second war in Iraq. The opposite is true - we won both wars big time.

The American policy vs Iran is not dictated by Israel or by any particular party. It is the outcome of what the US defines as its National Interest, and of opportunities that present themselves.
Clearly, as with Saddam's Iraq, the US national interest is to stabilize and pacify the Middle East, and in this perspective the Iranian regime is a grave source of threat and destabilization forces, not just in an Israeli context, but in a Persian / Arab gulf context, as well as in a global context.

In fact, the US and the Iranian regime have been engaged in a war by proxy for decades, regardless of which party was in power in Washington.

Lebanon and Somalia weren't wars, they were merely limited military operations. The same is true for Afghanistan, where the real problem is that the country lacks sufficient social, economic, and political resources that could serve as a basis for nation building. Afghanistan is not even a failed state, since no proper state ever existed in that country.

And last but not least, as this article rightly points, GWI cured America from its Vietnam syndrome.

The definition of won or lost is too grey for either Pez or Dancer to make an ultimate claim to. The article clearly demonstrates this you two. The FGW wasn't won because in fact there was a SGW, as Saddam remained in power. You can't say we lost the SGW, because Saddam was driven from power. Though there were no WMD's which pissed America off because we were lied to by the Bush Administration and that's the only reason we invaded(and to this day guys like Rumsfeld still try to convince us otherwise, ugggh!). Obviously the Iraqi government is a shell of what the Baathist government was, and sectarian violence keeps the nation a step away from a failed state.

What's important here is that the Powell Doctrine dictates something that neither war bothered to have dictated before they were started. That is, that you need a clear political objective. In other words, yes America's present day leaders are so dumb that actually needed a doctrine to tell them, if you go to war, make sure you have a clear goal.

By "Uncle Sam" you, of course, mean the Wall Street / K Street / Pentagon Axis. America wouldn't invade other nations unless the plutocrats project a profit therefrom. Killed and maimed Americans and many others don't matter. I've been around the world four times. Nearly all of the hundreds of people I have come to know hate America - usually for similar reasons. Except for the politicians who gain so much financially from our meddling, the world wants America to stay out of its affairs. They know that we only bring death, destruction, and economic ruin.

I remember my own reaction to the first Gulf war. The Denver Post published a long article about the efforts of local church groups to help children cope with the horrors of war. WHAT???? I had just finished reading a book detailing the miseries of the London Blitz in WWII. And we were all upset about the effect of a conflict that lasted slightly longer than a bad head cold?

It merely served to remind me how sheltered, pampered and ignorant we are here in America.

Can you explain what is so offensive about a church trying to help children cope? Seriously, what is your issue? Should we do nothing because we perceive someone else in another time may have suffered more? The blitz was a picnic compared to the bombing of Dresden or Warsaw. So should the Brits have done nothing?

Occuppying a land against the will of the people, Saddam was obviously the bad guy and America did the right thing by liberating Kwait.
The right of Serbia to occupy Kosovo - won a century ago during the First Balkan War - is also disputed and the USA supported the Kosovars.
In Tibet, Palestine, Jammu and Kashmir this is not so obvious the case for China, Israel and Pakistan/India/China, but many would say so.
Some peoples in the Caucasus - Chechenya, Ossetia and Abkhazia - or in Siberia will think the same about the Russians ot the Georgians.
Nevertheless as the present unrest by native "Chilean" Mapuche tell, for many people in the American continets and in Oceania we, the European descendent speaking European languages and imposing our states. We - Brazilians, Americans, Russians, Bolivians, Australians... - we are the invaders that conquered Stone Age and Bronze Age peoples. OK, they were neither rich in oil nor strategic, nor symbolic of religious beliefs..

Compared to Iraq part 2 and Afghanistan, Iraq 1 was a resounding success - Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait with minimal casualties, the US maintained international support from a broad coalition including many Arab countries, and the financial cost was minor. I heard George H W Bush speak once about why he did not go on to Baghdad in 1991 - he said a) I had no plan for occupation b) the Iraqis might turn and fight instead of running c) the international support would evaporate overnight and the US would be left fighting by itself. Too bad his son didn't listen.

Let those politicians declaring battle "on any country's behalf, for any stated purpose" be in the first line of attack. Or, at least, have their direct descendents in the line of fire for said battles duration.

Maybe if you'd mention that Iraq suffered 20 years war by the allies, these propagated myths about just and moral wars or lessons learned from Vietnam will melt down like clay in the rain. The sanctions on Iraq were an act of war, and the allies are responsible for all their outcomes, from deaths of children (about 0.5m from 91-96) to destruction of education and health systems of a poor developing country, like Iraq.

International law? Destroying a country and starving its population over 12 years under criminal sanctions and corrupt "Food-for-Oil" programs complies to international law? Only in America!

Popularity of armed forces? So, why middle-class kids don't fight for the country anymore? Why are soldiers being paid noble sums for their service?

Hi,
Norman’s conquest. Distrust all in who the impulse to punish is of command. General Norman Schwarzkopf, a soldier of historical equal put a prone of injustice in the name of the law. The invasion of Iraq was illegal of which to his shame Tony (war) Blair committed the blood of many. I remember listing to an American pilot on attacking Iraq, “It’s like turkey shooting” . These poor people.

You seem a little confused. Saddam invaded two adjacent countries recognized by the U.N. His invading forces were duly forced-out and sent home after heavy losses. What is your problem? Talk of "illegal" in this context is silly.

Ambiguity of opponent remains the biggest problem. In desert conflicts, it is easier to determine who you are fighting. Urban settings, like heavy vegatation, make it harder to decide who to kill. The preception of clarity is a necessary condition for popular support of a war.

The article is 50 % right - only fifty percents - those other 50 % belong to silent victims of that Great victory . We Americans are as Diego Garcia natives -shafted by Media army to chew their allocated xxxx.

It's not only conservatives who wish the U.S. had taken Saddam out during the first Gulf war. Saddam came to believe that the reason the U.S. didn't remove him from power was because the U.S. thought he had nuclear weapons. And that's why he didn't let the U.N. weapons inspectors in when he didn't actually have them, he was trying to maintain the threat. And that led inevitably to the second Gulf war.

To be fair, the sectarian tensions would still have been there if Saddam had been removed from power then, and Iraqi society would still have gone through its violence and political growing pains. There was no good option for Bush the elder. But it was pre-9/11, and the extremist Islamic movement hadn't yet fully taken shape, so maybe some of the violence attending the occupation wouldn't have happened.

Perhaps they should have gone into Baghdad and finish off Saddam Hussein (Norman would have done that, I think) There would have been no need for the second, more controversial and more expensive war on Iraq.

Heh heh, good point. Still, perhaps Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney would like to justify the deaths of thousands of young Americans to their parents?

Something like:
"Now we get our oil a lot cheaper and we have opened a nice new training ground for Al Qaeda recruits so we can better keep an eye on them. Thanks for sending us your sons & daughters in good faith. We really appreciate the sacrifice. Please never wise up".

Interesting that Schwarzkopf appears to get so much credit for the relative success of the 1st Gulf War. When in truth he was only working within the framework provided by his superiors.

The real success is attributed to Bush Sr., Colin Powell and James Baker. They built a solid international coalition. They kept the same objective throughout without compromise. Most important of all they showed restraint when they were pressured and maybe tempted to go further.

The difference between how father and son operated, it couldn't have been more stark and tragic.

Those of us who lived through the Vietnam war understand the symbolism of Gen Schwarzkopf. He is a symbol of the opposite of the political inneptitude of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson who did not understand what they were getting into and in Johnson's case spent so much time dictating minutia about how the war should be conducted and contributed so much to the war being lost. Bush let the generals fight the war while he handled the heavy-lift politics.

I'll open with a statement that I certainly respect the service the General provided to US during his career. And he clearly showed his skill in planning and then leading while the plan was executed.

That said though, the praise heaped upon him for being a great strategist is unearned. He certainly was a great student of military history. As a result, he did not need to develop an innovative strategy. He in fact used strategy which was described thousands of years ago in "The Art of War" and demonstrated brilliantly, unfortunately, by the German blitzkieg in France in 1940. Quoting here from Wikipedia - "Initially the depleted French forces put up stiff resistance, but German air superiority gradually overwhelmed French artillery positions. German forces outflanked the Maginot Line and pushed deeper into France as French forces began to collapse." Sound familiar? Kind of like American air supremacy depleting the strength of Iraqi fixed positions for 6 weeks and then using a highly mobile force to outflank the line of fixed defenses Saddam had placed in the desert, cutting off Iraqi units and using air surpemacy to support their destruction.

Use your strenghts (in this case air power and mobility) and avoid the enemy's strengths (in this case fixed defensive positions and superior ground force numbers). A strategy known for thousands of years. How to do this in modern warfare? Demonstrated by Germany in WWII.

I'm sure I'll be called a lot of names for casting dispersion on Stormin' Norman. But again - Stormin' Norman was a credit to the country and a great leader. My issue is all these people who think he did something novel. Those who feel his strategy in Iraq was innovative simply don't know much history.

GW1 was for a just cause , as Saddam had invaded Kuwait, a US ally.What about GW2? US and NATO have lost it out in Afghanistan because of GW2.Now Iraq is where it was in 2001.Ditto for Afghanistan in 2014.Post 9/11, USA had the sympathy and support of entire world.How is it now?

I realize that defending Hussein's actions rate about as high as defending Stalin, but to be honest I'm not 100% sure that he was unjustified in his invasion. The Kuqaitis were using directional drilling to tap into oil fields in Iraq, in essense they were stealing his oil out from under him. If Canada slant drilled into American oil fields, do you not think that the Americans would be moderately peeved?

He appealed to the US Ambassador to intervene and fix the situation or give him approval to fix it himself and he believed that he had received the go ahead from the US Ambassador to do so.

Given that Bush installed Hussein as President when he was the head of the CIA and given that he set-up and took down several of his operatives over time for personal gain (see Noriega and bin Ladin) it is not beyond suspect that Hussein was intentionally given a green light to invade just to set him up for a fall. Bush knew that Americans will always rally around a war president, but he forgot to time the war properly, he needed it to still be raging during the election.

The U.S. would never wage war against Canada with the casus belli being "slant drilling."

In any event, you seem to have a pretty easy time rationalizing invasion. I wonder if you can rationalize the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 as well. Certainly President Bush had more cause to invade Iraq than Hussein did to invade Kuwait. Yet, I'm sure your sympathy for invaders runs out when the aggressor is a western nation.

"The U.S. would never wage war against Canada with the casus belli being "slant drilling.""

This would be because there are organizations which would give the US legal recourse to seek compensation. Kuwait and Iraq did not have such a recourse. If Canada told the US to piss off and continued to slant drill the US would take great exception and likely would consider other options.

Don't get me wrong. Hussein was a "bad man". He was a very bad guy, to be honest. But there were certainly some considerations to look beyond the standard US PR reports.

There is no way you can possibly justify the invasion of Iraq. I will give you Afganistan, that was justifiable. It doesn't have anything to do with where the invading country is located. Invading a country that has not attacked you is illegal.

Did Kuwait attack Iraq? No. Therefore, "there is no way you can possibly justify the invasion of" Kuwait. You seem to have no problem apologizing for Hussein, but President Bush is a monstrous ogre. All of this left-wing, "blame America first, dictators later," loser-ism, is tiresome.

Kuwait was stealing oil from Iraq. I suggest that other routes could have been tried, but I can see why it happened. Understanding how it happened and suggesting that it is a grey area is not defending Hussein as being a nice guy.

The US invasion of Iraq was unprovoked. Iraq did nothing to the US, did not attack any one. Now we have hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. You think that is ok because the US has democratic elections?

You wrote: "[i]nvading a country that hasn't attacked you is illegal." Your apparent "gloss" on that maxim: "only if you're the United States; I'm happy to think up excuses for dictators, but the U.S. is categorically wrong, all the time."

@ alex: no way to justify the invasion of Iraq? You must not know many Iraqi.
The way it looked to me, ex-pat Iraqis had been lobbying for years in Washington and anywhere else for help overthrowing the dictator. The effort finally worked.

You are going to actually sit there and make up things that I haven't said so you can argue against them? Really?

Given that the land of Iraq had been violated by hostile actions of Kuwait, I would suggest that it was a counter invasion.

Did, per chance, Iraq invade Brooklyn in 2002 and I missed it?

There are many invasions around the world to which I would object. Iraq happens to be one of them.

The US is not always wrong, but they often are. The US was right in Korea, wrong in Vietnam. The US was wrong in Panama, Grenada, and Iraq (to name a few). The US was right in WWII (though rather late in coming to that realization, seeing as how the rest of us had been fighting that problem for a number of years before they bothered to help out). WWI there is no right or wrong. It was just a bad situation all around.

The US was also wrong in the Phillipines, Hawaii, and when Perry sailed into Tokyo harbour. I can give you a longer list if you would really like it. Would you prefer to hear that France was wrong first in Vietnam? Or that France was wrong in Algeria and Tunisia? Or perhaps that Britain was wrong in Africa (as a whole) and India and China? That Britain was wrong in Ireland and the Middle East long before the Americans ever had a chance to screw the place up is beyond doubt. Britain and France and Israel were wrong during the disaster that was the Suez Canal (America was actually in the right on that situation).

History is full of situations that we can look at and say "Someone did something morally wrong there" and the 2003 invasion of Iraq will be one of those.

If it puts salve on your hurt feelings, America was right in Afganistan. I just think they screwed up the aftermath (though I'm not positive that that place could ever be fixed up properly).

Slant drilling is not a "hostile action," it's sharp business. I quoted your exact comment. Kuwait did not attack Iraq. Therefore, according to your rule, Iraq's invasion was completely and totally illegal. Yet, you're willing to think up some bogus conspiracy theory revolving around Bush wanting Iraq to invade Kuwait for some reason that would, no doubt, be the envy of many a super-villain, rather than blaming the dictator who used chemical weapons on his own people. It's absurd. The Bush Derangement Syndrome is truly devastating. It warps thinking beyond repair.

Laconophile, you wrote:
The U.S. would never wage war against Canada with the casus belli being "slant drilling."

Canadians do not directionally drill across the border because it is illegal without permits on both sides. In any case, there are no locations where such projects would offer a reasonable return to Canadian drillers.

The US needs no justification for going to war, so the statement is irrelevant to any argument concerning the US and its wars.

Saddam could have filed a formal case with the International Court of Justice. But instead he invaded Kuwait AND Saudi Arabia. He then proceeded to brutalize the civilian polulation. Who respects that?

If Im not mistaken It pays rather well to suffer from all those new age post traumatic syndromes.You get a nice bump up in the payoffs from government hence this spike in all those tender tormented ex military souls seeking support,primarily financial one from the pentagon.
When there is no money or god forbid a "stigma" you see no post traumatism none at all.

Threeye, those soldiers who are sucking your coffers dry (to paraphrase what you said) fought for your freedom (if you are American) and were possibly wounded for it. Whether or not you're American, you're reprehensible.

But, thanks for adding your opinion to this page...you have clarified that you are an idiot instead of just allowing us to think that you are one.

Neither have I ever been involved in a firefight. But lack of experience in such an event doesn't prevent someone from making valid commentary on the issue. If that were the case, it would be just as valid to claim if you weren't in a firefight you aren't qualified to determine if someone has PTSD - thus how many psychologists would be banned from making the diagnosis.

So despite my having never been shot at (though I was nearly killed by being run down by a boat during Navy Seal training demonstration I was participating in as a Midshipman) I'll render my observation on this issue. Hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans such as many uncles of mine were involved in firefights and worse in WWII. One of my uncles flew 49 B17 missions over Europe in 1942 and 43 including 1 where an antiaircraft shell tore through the cockpit incapacitating his co-pilot whom he had to pull off the controls before he could bring the bomber back into formation. Then he had to continue on the mission while his copilot's life was in the balance until he could get back to base (fortunately the copilot survived). Another uncle flew 25 B17 missions as a bombardier in 1943 and 44 - flying deep missions into Germany beyond the range of fighter protection at the time. This included the Schweinfurt-Regensburg raid with 1 out of 6 bombers lost and 1 our 4 of the remainder heavily damaged. Both these men amazingly are still alive, living happy and well adjust lives. And there were never gov't payments to them for PTSD.

I am not saying it doesn't exist and I am not saying that the WWII vets were just a tougher breed who were immune. But it is fair to ask how many cases are real and how many are just taking advantage of the situation. And it is also fair to ask is it something that is incurable or at some point do you move on and the disbaility payments ought to stop.

And it is immoral for those not truly suffering to be receiving benefits to the detriment of those who are. My problem is the often seen knee-jerk comments like "sure, some are faking but we shouldn't risk questioning the truly needy to weed out a few bad eggs, just pay off the guilty too". I have a real problem with such sentiment. First, in a world of limited resources and competing needs we have an obligation to ensure when we take a resource from the guy who worked to produce it that it really does some benefit. So due diligence in questioning all claims is justified and the truly needy should recognize that it isn't persecution - it's needed to protect those footing the bill AND those who are getting the benefit. Second, the sentiment above is often used as bat to beat down anyone who honestly questions whether their is justification for what is being paid. Just as you don't cut off the truly needy just because some people are abusing the system, you also don't silence the people honestly questioning the need just because there are some who simply don't want to pay for any reason.

I served in the Army at the height of the second Iraq war, and while I didn't see combat myself, I served with several guys who had. From what they tell me, the problem in their infantry unit was the opposite of what you describe: Guys hid that they were suffering from PTSD symptoms for fear that they would not be allowed to go back into the field with their unit. I would guess that for every false report of PTSD from a VA benefit-seeker there are ten unreported cases from veterans struggling on their own with depression, anxiety, alcoholism and the fractured relationships that these and other effects of PTSD bring about.

I think if you look at tours of duty, the are orders of magnitude longer than during WWII on average. Compare general conscription and the 'voluntary' forces we have now. WWII was a conventional war, we took territory, eventually won, and that was that. Same with Dessert Storm. Vietnam and the two most recent wars never enjoyed the same terminus. Both were poisoned by starry eyed nonsense.

You're right it doesnt really matter whether or not Im an american.I expect for troops to behave accordingly.I expect them to do their job or die trying.I dont want to see countless movies about their supposed heroism. Id rather watch a movie about hardships of landing a job working mad hours and on the end of it having to part with his money to pay for some losers who couldnt function in a real world.
There is an agreement between society and its "enforcers","defenders" "glorified thugs in uniform" or whatever.We pay you money so you dont have to work the fields,so you dont have to worry about housing,retirement etc in return you put yourself in harms ways and maybe die in necessary.Stick to this agreement or get out ot the profession.There is no draft you have a choice.

Some don't have much of a choice. We also know that many 18-year-olds do not have the intellectual maturity to face future choices rationally, when they even exist. Recruiters also tend to glorify aspects of the job. Once the signature is on the dotted line, the government "owns" the soldier for a minimum period of time, and recruiters' statements mean nothing. Some 18-year-olds are more suggestible than others.
The 18-year-old cutoff for "adulthood" is based upon what in particular? It's a rather arbitrary cutoff. Some 17-year-olds are more mature than some 19-year-olds. You can debate the metrics utilized to back that statement until you are blue in the face. Generalizations about age and its relationship to maturity are as crude as generalizations about race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc (I could go on and on) and their relationships to behavior.
What we are talking about here is not whether the volunteer soldiers are willing to die for their countries. Rather, we are talking about the psychological after-effects that some suffer, and whether treatment or compensation is necessary and/or deserved. I think you have missed the point. The bravery of many of these men and women is not in question. Rather, it is the end result of conflict for those survivors, physically wounded or otherwise, that is in question. We do not, to my knowledge, have an ability to predict this accurately 100% of the time. If we could, perhaps we could minimize the psychological trauma that some experience after their discharge from military life.
Sorry that you don't think that those who protect your freedom to write whatever you want on this blog, for example, are heroic. Sit back and count your money and continue bitching about the amount you have to give up so that these pathetic fools who protect your freedom can get paid for their non-heroic work.
I'm glad that there are truly heroic men and women who protect your ability to disseminate your reprehensible opinions to all. Sorry that you don't agree. I dislike what you write but I'm happy that you are able to write it. One day, thank a soldier who has protected your right to do that. Swallow your pride, if necessary, and do it.

Sorry Im not subscribing under this notion that there is somekind of war going on between evil and good, freedom and "communism" or "islamic fascism" or something else.
Howerver Im rather inclined to agree that small military involvements are rather good for economy.
Solders are payed too much.Taxpayers dont get their moneys worth. American solders( to be fair other countries military personnel suck as much or even more) are useless when it comes out to accomplishing their mission.They failed miserable in Korea they failed in vietnam they failed in iraq they have absolutely nothing to show for in afganistan.
What Im saying is there needs to be more accountability, more outsourcing.Hire some real professionals who are apt in killing and wont forward their shrink bills to taxpayers

You're incorrect. Vietnam has a 12 or 18 month tour than you were home and didn't go back unless you opted to. Also, 3 wounds and you were out. Current wars in in Iraq and Afghanistan are similar as fixed tour. However, you are correct that here that if you stay in and your unit is redeployed you will go again. But you can always quit when your enlistment is up - it is a volunteer military.

WWII - you were not going to quit and you were not going home until the war was over. Many served in fighting from Dec 7 1941 until Sept of 1945 and, in some areas of the Pacific longer than that. My father didn't enlist until 1946 but in the Phillipines his unit was still occassionally shot at by Japanese soldiers who didn't believe the war was over. So the idea that the likelihood of PTSD is higher today than WWII is not supported.

And again, I never said this did not exist. But unlike the generation which came through the Depression and WWII where the whole society was involved, greater portions of subsequent generations have the attitude that government (i.e. other tax payers) owe them a comfortable life and this breeds a situation where abuse of benefits happens more frequently.

Because I know of at least two people one with a physical problem and one with a mental problem who lied about their medical status to get accepted. Then when the stress of training and other service hit them, suddenly these problems became discovererd and blamed on the military. And now these people are both receiving benefits for life.

As for how I define truly suffering, I'm willing to accept a fair diagnosis of the problem. But a fair diagnosis means that the afflicted needs to cooperate with the tests and assessments required. What I see happening now is the argument that since the person might be afflicted we cannot stress them more by doing a proper diagnosis. So just pay anyone who claims to have a problem.

"...greater portions of subsequent generations have the attitude that government (i.e. other tax payers) owe them a comfortable life and this breeds a situation where abuse of benefits happens more frequently."

One could make the counter-argument that once the draft was eliminated, poor kids fought the wars in place of the wealthy (who supposedly pay the taxes).

One example: I heard recently that there is a place at Harvard where those who died in US wars are listed, and that after WW2 the numbers drop off significantly, to only one Harvard death in Vietnam, for example.

" But unlike the generation which came through the Depression and WWII where the whole society was involved, greater portions of subsequent generations have the attitude that government (i.e. other tax payers) owe them a comfortable life and this breeds a situation where abuse of benefits happens more frequently."

For the most part, I agree, however let's be clear here that it is corporations that sell these ideas, because it makes them money.

By far the Baby Boomers fall into this group having been brainwashed for most of their lives.

I'm sure you all could have done a better job. And I agree, that "senile fool" should be hanged. He was a hundred times worse than that dictator he helped bring down. You remember the one who used chemical weapons and practiced ethnic cleansing.

Rumsfeld is in the unenviable position of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The putz lost Iraq some quarter million civilians lives, and destituted the nation. But Haliburton made millions.
PS The Romans would have had him executed for that level of incompetence.

Ah, yes. Now add "corporate greed" to the equation and we now have a thread fit for Michael Moore.
What would the Romans have done to Hussein? I don't really care, but it seems to be the standard set by this thread.

All this while the Democrats AND Republicans voted for the war and then acted surprised when the truth was revealed that Saddam has tricked everyone and provided the cover to take him out. It is hard to say who the bigger idiot was: Saddam, Democrats, or Republicans!

I am so glad I wrote all my elected "leaders" before the war started telling them to not invade and that they would lose if they did. If the rest of you had done so it would have been politically impossible for the war to start as it did.